Why is there something rather than nothing?

Some people wonder whether this question, which Leibniz termed the “Primordial Existential Question”, is actually meaningful. Or whether it may in fact be a non-starter. For his part Parmenides asked it nonetheless, concluding that “nothingness” or “non-being” was impossible and that therefore things must have always existed. (Parmenides thus avoids an infinite regress). According to Parmenides, no first cause for either matter or motion is possible, and so if something exists at any time at all, it will have existed always, and will continue to exist unchangingly for eternity.

There are physicists who believe that a response is possible to this question, whether that is to explain why/how something can come from nothing; or that something has always existed.

Please write your views on this question, perhaps also indicating the following

  • Is it meaningful?
  • Can it be definitively answered one day?
  • What are the philosophical implications in the case of it being answered; and in the case of it not being answered?
  • Any suggestions for an answer, however outlandish?

Happy birthday Søren Kierkegaard!

If he had not died after a stroke at the age of only 42, the „religious writer“ as he called himself would have turned 200 today.  Despite of his rather short life he enriched the world of philosophy and religious theory enormously.

One more reason to recall some of his thoughts that challenged not only the established protestant church of Denmark, because he contradicted their claim to possess the knowledge of what (Christian) faith is and how Christianity should be interpreted and lived, but he also questioned what is supposed to be the opposite: the – at that time wide spread – belief that knowledge could only be gained and truth can only be found through rationality.

He claimed that truth could not be found without subjectivity.

[T]he crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, and to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die. Of what use would it be to me to discover a so-called objective truth, to work through the philosophical systems so that I could, if asked, make critical judgements about them, could point out the fallacies in each system; of what use would it be to me to be able to develop a theory of the state, . . .“

An approach that is worth reconsidering, as extreme and dogmatic attitudes are once again on the rise and people are split into those who claim the total ruling of either rationality or god.